Saturday, March 5, 2016

Great Review of IDW Disney Comics by "Comic Book Rehab"!


...I wish this Blog "were back" to continue discussing these great comics, and other items that inhabit "The Universe of Things That Interest Me".  

In the meantime, I can think of nothing better to carry us through this Blog's period of necessary darkness than this wonderful review of the IDW Disney comic book line by our friend "Comic Book Rehab"!  

We WILL be back with more but, for now, please enjoy this great piece!  

...And, to 'Rehab: Yes, I'd LOVE to get a crack at the "Teen Beagles" series he mentions in the review.  



And thanks especially for the kind words on "Love is Never Having to Say You're Sentenced"!



Finally, to all: Know that some of the time spent away from this Blog is in service to two long Mickey Mouse stories - one of 35 pages, and another of 30 pages.  And that one of them (written and drawn by Casty), in my own humble opinion, rivals "Plan Dine from Outer Space" as the greatest thing I've had the honor of working on for IDW!  



Go read "Comic Book Rehab's" piece HERE!  You'll LOVE IT! 

UPDATE: Please note this cover to Disney Comics’ MICKEY MOUSE ADVENTURES # 4 - and it's villain, in particular.  

It will figure into the Comment Thread of this post! 


  

64 comments:

Comicbookrehab said...

Thanks,Joe! When I closed with, "Don't miss any of it" I meant it. That essay is setting a record in the "popular posts" ranking on my blog; it's about to beat my profile of Donald's 4th nephew for the top spot,now.
Looking forward to those (intentional inside joke ahead) authentic "Epic Mickey" stories!

Joe Torcivia said...

You’re very welcome, ‘Rehab!

I’m pleased to give any further exposure I can to your fine post. And, for whatever reason, the IDW posts that I do far outrank any others, in terms of views – and in reader participation. I really should broaden (…or, more accurately, “re-broaden”) the scope of this Blog to what it once was, but IDW Disney is something that my readers are really interested in, at least at the present time.

…And, thanks again for providing the “linking relief” I need to keep this Blog fresh, while immersed in Mickey – one Scarpa and one Casty, for the record!

Anonymous said...

I have a question about Donald's nephews: when were thier surnames first estabilished to be Duck?

Joe Torcivia said...

Off the top of my head, I have no idea. It was well-established when I began reading, so I just accepted it as-is. I'd bet the information is published somewhere, or maybe one of our own stalwarts can tell us.

While we're at it, why do Donald AND Daisy have the same last name? And, ditto for Mickey AND Minnie? Yet, we go out of our way, sometimes to outlandish lengths, to "uniquely name" newer characters?

Comicbookrehab said...

"Duck" and "Mouse" may be common surnames for anthropomorphic animals, like "Smith", "Jones", etc..

Elaine said...

Clarabelle Cow. Dippy Dawg. Gladstone Gander. Mortimer Mouse. Emil Eagle. Bucky Bug. Belle Duck. Not to mention, the dating (unmarried) couples Bugs and Honey Bunny, Porky and Petunia Pig, Daffy and Melissa Duck, Woody and Winnie Woodpecker, etc. And Leghorn is a breed of chicken. There are exceptions even in early cartoons, like Clara Cluck, but mostly they don't have last names, they have species designations. Certainly Barks created some last names that were more varied (Gearloose [aren't we glad he's not Charlie Chicken?], Glomgold, etc.), clearly moving into different naming territory; I don't know how much this happened in comics before or alongside his work (Shyster). When you have a world full of ducks, mice and dognoses, you couldn't name them all in the old cartoony style even if you wanted to.

The in-universe explanation, of course, is the "Smith/Jones" one.

Joe Torcivia said...

To Ms. Elaine Human:

Way back in 1990, I wrote a letter on this subject to (Disney Interregnum’s) MICKEY MOUSE ADVENTURES. Sometime tonight, when I am able to look up the issue it was published in, I’ll transcribe it here.

Joe Human (…No relation!)

Anonymous said...

@Joe
"It was well-established when I began reading, so I just accepted it as-is": I imagined that. I mostly read Barks through translations so I don't know how many times he used their surname, but I know it appears at least twice: in "Turkey Trouble" (WDC 75, December 1946) Huey identifies himself as Huey Duck, and in Barks' cover for WDC 176 (May 1955) we see their school report cards with the names Huey Duck, Dewey Duck and Louie Duck. I am not much interested in a complete list of all the instances in which their surname is used, but I am least curious to know if "Turkey Trouble" is the first ever use of the surname or if there is any comic book/comic strip/sunday page/animation short/whatever that came out before December 1946 and uses the surname Duck for the boys.

I also wonder if Daisy's nieces April, May and June (daughters of Daisy's unnamed sister) have the surname Duck or not.

Of course, I totally agree with the Smith/Jones argument for the in-universe explanation.

Anon Human (no relation to Elaine or Joe)

Gregory Weagle said...

Not really related; but: http://www.ew.com/article/2016/03/07/ducktales-reboot-photo

So there you have it; it looks like it's going to be done in Toon Boon; and it looks okay, but nothing I haven't seen before. It's faithful enough; although Scrooge driving the cheapest jeep he could find did amuse me.

Clapton said...

Gregory:
The promo pic actually looks pretty good. The charachters look modernized while retaining their essence. Plus look! Their not CGI and Donald and Scrooge have their comic book colors! I hope that the core team of localizers for IDW get to write some episodes for the new show.
Now if only we can get a Floyd Gotffredson Mickey Mouse tv show... And if we were to get one I have some fairly fleshed out ideas on how to go about it. Hit me up Disney!

Joe Torcivia said...

Not bad, Greg! Not bad!

HERE is Greg’s link for your viewing pleasure.

And, for the sake of completeness, our good friend Adel Khan sent me a similar-but-different link, which you will find HERE.

My immediate reaction is: Not bad! Not bad at all! Actually, much better than I feared, truly! I was expecting either CGI (Ugh!) or "Wabbit" (Double Ugh!)

Glad to see DONALD there. Could this be the more "Barks-like" series many of us have always wanted?

And, will we FINALLY get an adaptation of Barks’ “The Twenty-Four Carat Moon”? The original series really missed the boat (rocketship?) on that one. Glomgold with the DT Beagle Boys in tow, the Grand Kishi, and J.R. Mooing as Scrooge’s competitors! Launchpad OR Donald could have been worked into that! It was a natural!

However, skeptical me wants to see more before buying-in.

But, if this series can give the IDW comics the same boost-in-interest that the original DuckTales series gave the comics from Gladstone Series One, then that’s a win-win!

Greg and Adel are thanked for their intrepid reporting! Send us more, when you find out!

Joe Torcivia said...

Anon Human:

Gosh, “Human” is a much more common surname than I imagined!

This may come as a surprise but, believe it or not, I have never read the Carl Barks stories chronologically! Oh, I have a general sense of which story preceded which other one, but that’s more based on the style of the art, lettering, and other visible factors.

I can certainly place each and every one of them into a general time period of their own but, without consulting my collection, or other research works, I could not specifically tell you which story followed which – except for those I actually read as they were released in the sixties. Those, and the order in which I read them (and under what circumstances), are, for better or for worse, forever burned into my mind!

So, I cannot state definitively whether or not “Turkey Trouble” is the first mention of the surname “Duck” for the nephews. And, given my time constraints, if I tried looking it up myself, this Blog might go dark for a month or more! But, I have a very resourceful readership, so let’s turn it over to them.

I’m also not sure if April, May, and June were ever referred to by the surname “Duck” (because I would just regard that as “natural”, and make no special note of it), but I would sure remember if they were named something else! That, I have never seen!

Now, keep reading, and you’ll find the letter I wrote to Disney Comics’ MICKEY MOUSE ADVENTURES on the subject of character names, back in 1990…

Joe Torcivia said...

The following Letter of Comment was written in response to Disney Comics’ MICKEY MOUSE ADVENTURES # 4 (the introduction of villain “Wiley Wildebeest”), and was printed in MICKEY MOUSE ADVENTURES # 5! They sure worked fast back then, especially considering all such letters were sent, carried cross-country (NY to CA), delivered, received, and editorially processed via what we now call “Snail Mail”!

Dear Editor:

Let’s see if I’ve got this straight. Mickey is a mouse. Donald is a duck. Wiley Wildebeest is a… er… um, a tiger. Hmmm… Must have missed something.

Surnames of anthropomorphic characters generally fall into two main categories. One is indicative of species. Such as Gladstone Gander, Gus Goose, and Roger Rabbit. The other signifies a personality trait or major characteristic as in Gyro Gearloose, Flintheart Glomgold, or DUCKTALES’ Fenton Crackshell.

Leave it to those innovative folks at MICKEY MOUSE ADVENTURES to devise a villain who breaks not only laws, but conventions as well! At least no one will ever ask Mr. Wildebeest “What’s Gnu?”


How ‘bout that! Even then, I was getting bad puns into Disney comics!

Not to mention that, as the creator of such character names as “Handlebars Mc Twirlsneer”, “Barrelchest Mc Vigilant (“Barry” for short)”, and the upcoming “Darlene Decibel” (I hope that survives!) – let alone “Iris-One”, “Eye-Claudius”, and the rest of the Mono-Ocularians, I’ve certainly bought-into that second method!

Comicbookrehab said...

Pre-production artwork is not necessarily an indicator that it won't be in cg - it just shows what the designs will be based on...assuming that they're still going with cgi...I would love it if we got some confirmation from jimhillmedia.. it looks they might take a page out of the earlier episodes of the original series AND dip into the Barks material..if it works with their ideas..

Who wants to bet they cast Craig Ferguson as Scrooge McDuck?

"Wabbit"...harmless, but kind of unremarkable..it's like Time Warner wishes they owned Spongebob Squarepants...

Joe Torcivia said...

I *like* the idea of Craig Ferguson as Scrooge. ‘Rehab!

Then again, I loved him as “Roddy MacStew” in Freakazoid! I just hope he’s not too big a star for non-feature animation these days.

I like Spongebob Squarepants but, when you own many of the greatest characters ever created for animation, why would you “[wish you own] Spongebob Squarepants”? What are these people thinking?! The mind boggles!

Comicbookrehab said...

Ferguson's a safe bet to me..the only other actor I would be curious tosee cast would be Clancy Brown - his "Mr. Krab" voice would probably be speeded up a bit to sound more exuberant, but it could totally work.


And the mating habits of conglomerates remain a mystery of nature...Disney owns characters like Deadpool, The Punisher and Damian Hellstrom, but it was only because Fox owns the film rights to the X-Men franchise that Wade Wilson got a movie..if Time Warner wishes to flirt a little with Viacom/Paramount, then we just might see new episodes of "The Flintstones" and "Yogi Bear" premiere on Nickelodeon...someday. ;)

Joe Torcivia said...

‘Rehab:

I don’t know if I’m ready for Scrooge McDuck to share a voice with Lex Luthor, no matter how “cheap and frantic” Mr. Krabs can be! And, Clancy Brown was THE perfect Lex Luthor!

If the look of “Wabbit” is how today’s Time Warner reimagines its most precious of classic characters, I’ll be happy to keep my Flintstones and Yogi just as they were pre ‘70s, thank you very much! They sure don’t need to look like Nicktoons!

…Just complete Yogi, Huck Hound, and Quick Draw McGraw (and Wally Gator, and Peter Potamus) on DVD, before I die of old age! That’ll be enough for me, okay Time Warner?

Anonymous said...

"This may come as a surprise but, believe it or not, I have never read the Carl Barks stories chronologically!": given how he made about 700 comics, it's actually no surprise that many people read his stories out of order.

I see that the DuckTales news monopolized this discussion, but I trust that if someone here finds an earlier use of Duck as HDL's surname, or some info about AMJ's surname, that discovery will be reported here. I also hear sometimes that AMJ belong to the Chickadees, but I don't think it they do in stories by Barks (who creates both AMJ and the Chickadees. Does this info come from a non-Barks story?

As for the DuckTales news: I am glad there is Donald and not Launchpad, but I'm not so happy to see Webbey. I hope the new series would be more faithful to the Barks canon.

Deb said...

I think that Yogi, Huck, Fred Flintstone, George Jetson and the others are best left in their own time period. Most of them take cues from pop culture of their time that hasn't aged well, especially the Flintstones/Honeymooners connection. Nowadays, Fred would likely just become another Homer Simpson knock-off (although he had become more of a loveable bungler than a as the series went on).

TC said...

I seem to remember a WWII-era animated cartoon in which Donald was filling out an income tax form, and, in the section for dependents, he listed Huey, Dewey, and Louie as his adopted children. If he legally adopted them, then they would presumably have his surname. That still doesn't answer the question, though, of when they were first actually called by the name "Duck" in a comic book or cartoon.

I believe Mickey's nephews, Morty and Ferdy, had the last name "Fieldmouse" at one time. And Woody's Knothead and Splinter may have begun as neighbor kids or something, and they got retconned into his nephew and niece.

TheKKM said...

It's worth mentioning CGI doesn't necessarily mean 3d. If this is going to be animated like the Mickey Mouse shorts, it's still CGI (computer generated imagery), just 2d.

Time to go back to praying Fethry gets to be in this show.

Joe Torcivia said...

Wow! Go to work for a day , and look at all the great comments waiting for me! Let’s get to ‘em!

Anon:


A quick look at a concentrated section of my collection (which is all I have time for, alas) shows that April, May, and June were not shown to be Chickadees in Barks’ original Chickadee story, nor were they so in another Barks-written (but, not drawn) story “Whale of a Good Deed” from HUEY, DEWEY AND LOUIE JUNIOR WOODCHUCKS # 7 (October, 1970), which featured the Chickadees somewhat prominently.

AM&J did not appear as Chickadees in John Carey’s original art for the story, nor did they appear as such in Daan Jippes’ redrawing of it, which was last seen here in Boom!’s final issue of DONALD DUCK (# 367, 2011).

I would suspect, without taking the time to track it down, that the very logical notion of AM&J as Chickadees probably originated with Vic Lockman, Bob Gregory, or someone else writing the Duck comics for Western Publishing. AM&J did appear in the first two issues of HUEY, DEWEY AND LOUIE JUNIOR WOODCHUCKS (1966 and 1967, respectively) but NOT as Chickadees.

I suspect the idea originated somewhere within the run of HUEY, DEWEY AND LOUIE JUNIOR WOODCHUCKS, whether in another Barks-written (but, not drawn) story, or more likely in an original Gold Key story.

Deb said...

Oops! I meant to say "Nowadays, Fred would likely just become another Homer Simpson knock-off (although he had become more of a loveable bungler than a Ralph Kramden knock-off as the series went on)." I shouldn't let Goofy type my comments for me...(yeah, that's the ticket...it wasn't me, it was a fictional character...)

Joe Torcivia said...

Deb:

I’m sorry to say that I wish nearly EVERY great animated character that originated in “another time period” would be left alone, because no studio / network / focus group decision-making machine from the ‘70s onward seems capable of improving (or even maintaining) the quality of the original incarnation. The Flintstones, The Jetsons, and especially Yogi Bear are prime examples of this. And, don’t get me started on Looney Tunes!

A rare exception to this would be Scooby-Doo, with not one but TWO really great series: What’s New Scooby-Doo, and Scooby-Doo Mystery Inc. And, I’ll put in a good word for Mickey Mouseworks / House of Mouse, and the ‘90s Woody Woodpecker show. But, I’ll bet even those wouldn’t be nearly as good if produced today.

Joe Torcivia said...

TC:

Knothead and Splinter may have had the strangest origin of them all! I’ll simply pull this quote from one of my posts of 2010. …That should say it all!

“…And WALTER LANTZ NEW FUNNIES # 182 (April, 1952), which introduces us to "Knothead and Splinter" … sort of! In this debut tale, they are “Nuthead and Splinter”… and they are BOTH BOYS! At the end, they force themselves on Woody Woodpecker, whom they decide to call “Uncle Woody” – and are presumably adopted as such.”

Joe Torcivia said...

KKM:

Some CGI, when properly integrated into 2-D animation, as we often see in things like FAMILY GUY, is okay with me. I’ve just never been able to warm-up to 3D. I feel like I’m watching puppets, rather than cartoons. …But, that’s just me!

Um, would you (and David Gerstein) mind if *I* prayed that Fethry WASN’T in the new series?

I couldn’t bear to see him AND Fenton Crackshell together. It would almost be as bad as if Roger Rabbit were to meet Bonkers!

Comicbookrehab said...

If you have have Donald Duck and Launchpad AND Fenton Crackshell, there's no need for Fethry..unless Hard Haid Moe is in the wings..

I like Roger Rabbit AND Bonkers - I just think the writers were more interested (in both cases) in writing about their respective foils; Eddie Valiant, Sgt.Grating, Lucky Piquel and Miranda Wright seemed to embody the writer's subconcious fears about being stuck with work - the "funny animal" ghetto of Saturday/Weekday afternoon animation - they disliked. Bruce Timm didn't really enjoy working on "Tiny Toons", "Beany and Cecil" or "Mighty Mouse", but that was all until "Batman: The Animated Series".

Comicbookrehab said...

"The Looney Tunes Show" had it's moments, particularly in the second season, whenever the plot centered around Bugs, but I thought they turned Daffy into Homer Simpson at his worst, or having fun demeaning Porky Pig (because they didn't like writing the character, maybe?).

It's times like this that I believe Mickey and Donald are more resilient than Bugs and Daffy; they can be at home in sitcom stories and straightforward adventures - the latter two can't...not without the right people behind them..and they've passed on long ago..

Joe Torcivia said...

‘Rehab:

I know both David and Thad feel differently but, if Hard Haid Moe is in the wings, those “wings” should be clipped! I’ve never seen how that unfunny amalgam of Yosemite Sam and Snuffy Smith can possibly fit into the universe of Carl Barks as anything other than a “one-shot” (no gunplay pun intended) ornery type of hermit – the type of which we’ve seen in an occasional Barks story and in Scarpa’s lead for IDW’s UNCLE SCROOGE # 10! …Guess I’m never getting any “Moe stories” to dialogue, eh? I’d want Thad to do ‘em anyway!

Perhaps I’d need to “walk a mile in their shoes” before really commenting – and, frankly, I can’t imagine I’d actually want to work on Bonkers either – but, if it WERE my job, even to work on a character I despise like Richie Rich, I would want to make it the BEST Richie Rich that I could. I would bring my personal style to it, and meld that style with that “unfunny character” to the best of my abilities.

But, that opens up a much larger discussion, which is why ANYONE in charge of a property or character’s destiny cannot find the best possible match from the seemingly infinite pool of creators. That would include asking why the Disney and other comics from Gold Key and Whitman were written and drawn so badly by the end of the sixties and beyond. I cannot imagine that there were NO better writers and artists for Donald Duck than we got in the ‘70s. And THIS POST proves just how right I am on this – and how tragically wrong Western Publishing was!

I actually liked what little I saw of THE LOONEY TUNES SHOW. But, why did Bugs have to look so bad? In the ‘40s and ‘50s he was one of the most perfectly designed characters in all of animation! I have some DVDs of the LTS that I keep telling myself to catch up on, but other, more important and more recent things, like a THIRD Vincent Price Collection Blu-ray, and the utterly amazing 50th Anniversary LOST IN SPACE The Complete Adventures Blu-ray set, keep getting in the way… gosh-darn it all! Back when I had more time, I would certainly have done “Loooong DVD Reviews” of these, but I digress.

I feel today’s entertainment executives just want to take classic characters that are something akin to National Treasures, and intentionally bend, twist, and mutilate them into something different. Look at the upcoming Hanna-Barbera comics from DC ! And, that’s what’s so great about the IDW Disney comics “Core Four”. We are essentially doing the classic “Barks / Gottfredson thing” only sometimes more “punched-up” as a natural evolution would have them become. Contemporary, but remarkably classic, familiar, and comfortable! …And long may it be so!

Clapton said...

Joe:
The improved Bugs design in the second sesason of TLTS, switching from the gross purple pallet he had to the more traditional and visually appealing grey.

Joe Torcivia said...

Yes, but did he have those (for lack of better phraseology) clunky, clompy, huge paperweight feet?

Bugs Bunny, as designed by Robert McKimson in the ‘40s, when McKimson animated for Bob Clampett, was a magnificent, handsomely designed character! And, yes, his appearance varied, as animation got cheaper, later in the ‘60s and ‘70s, but how could anyone do what’s being done in modern times to such a character?

TheKKM said...

The solution to "can't have Fehtry due to Fenton" is simple, you know?

*insert an image of a roasted tasty delicious duck with Fenton's head here*

No but I get that, I don't want Fethry in as a recurring character (well I do, but I know what battles to fight), I just want the original recurring cast downplayed in terms of appearances so there's space for other characters. For an example, I'd rather have Quackmore as Scrooge's' butler, but I'll settle for an appearence in one episode or something! Just, come on. These are characters that've been around for nearly half a century, in some cases an actual half-century! Surely they deserve some acknowledgement :V

alternatively start planning a new Darkwing Duck show already and push some of the Ducktales characters there. Wouldn't mind seeing Fenton/Gizmo becoming straight out a Darkwing Duck character, and Bubba duck can get his appearance there too for all I care :P

Joe Torcivia said...

Aw, can’t we just put Bubba in some far off, out of the way place with Hard Haid Moe? They’d make an interesting pair.

Elaine said...

On the question of AMJ as Chickadees: there was no consistency over time in the depiction of girls' scouting groups in HDL/JW and other comics. In several stories in HDL/JW, Daisy and Donald, and Mickey Mouse, the Duckburg Girl Scouts are called Chickadees. I don't have all the relevant issues, but AMJ are Chickadees in "The Maze Valley Rescue" (art by Kay Wright, HDL/JW 78), "Trailblazers" (art by Bob Gregory, HDL/JW 68), "The Big Sprout" (HDL/JW 63), and "There's No Luck Like Good Luck" (John Carey, MM 124)--only in "Maze Valley Rescue" are they named, however, so in some cases it may have been the artist's choice to draw some or all of the Chickadees as AMJ. In other issues of HDL/JW, AM&J are in Scouting organizations called "Twitter-birds" ("The Great Twitter-bird Rescue" by Bob Gregory, W JW 47-03) and "Nature's Princesses" ("Rescue Squad", W JW 36-03). In Ludwig Von Drake 1, AM&J are in a Scouting group with the decent name of "Red Robins" ("Super Sales Girls", W LVD 1-06). I note that their scouting outfits also had no consistency: usual AMJ outfits in usual colors, or usual AMJ outfits colored khaki, or scouting hats instead of bows, or (though I can't find this one right now to document it) scouting hats PLUS bows! Only in LVD 1 as Red Robins do they have complete scouting outfits.

Anonymous said...

@TC
"I seem to remember a WWII-era animated cartoon in which Donald was filling out an income tax form, and, in the section for dependents, he listed Huey, Dewey, and Louie as his adopted children": you remember correctly, the cartoon is "The New Spirit" (1942), which is usually not listed in HDL appearences because we only see them as a thought of Donald. I was surprised that they used here the same colors as their debut short (red for Huey, orange for Dewey, green for Louie): from my memory I remembered that pre-1987 animation used random colors like the comics, without bothering for consistency. The short lists Donald as an actor, which is something I have always disliked. Anyway, the tax form for Donald lists them as you said, but oddly they are only listed without their surnames.

@Joe:
Thanks for all that useful info. So, I was right: Barks never said (though he didn't deny either) that AMJ belong to the Chickadees. Anyway, according to Inducks

https://goo.gl/9lXHb3

there are eight stories where both AMJ and the Chickadees appear: 1 S-coded (drawn by Strobl), 2 W-coded (drawn by Carey and Storbl), 4 B-coded and 1 D-coded. Of course, this doesn't prove that all eight stories have them as part of the Chickadees.

Beside the issue of the Chickadees and the issue of their surnames, when where their first names used? According to this webpage

https://weirdspace.dk/Disney/AprilMayJune.htm

"The names started with April being named in Dell Giant #35 and May and June in Four Color Comics #1140, both from 1960". If this is true, the name April was first used in their fourth appearance ("The Course In Confusion", ?/Alvarado) and the names May and June were first used in their fifth appearance ("Clubhouse Crashers", ?/DeLara). Is the name April also used in "Clubhouse Crashers"? And if not, which is the first story where all three of them are called by name?

Clapton said...

I didn't notice TLTS Bugs feet... until now that is... Yeah, they're pretty bad

Comicbookrehab said...

I'm convinced Dave Alvarez did the new designs for the cast in Season 2 of the "Looney Tunes Show", so they looked like they do in the comics he draws. What remains of Jessica Borutski's designs were Witch Lezah and Taz (both appeared infrequently anyway). Daffy remained out-of-touch with reality, but the jokes were less severe and demeaning.

Comicbookrehab said...

A caveduck and a backwoodsman? Sounds like one of those weird pastiches of Tex Avery that DIC produced in the 1990s for "The Wacky World of Tex Avery", which looked more like pastiches of Ralph Bakshi and John Kricfalusi than Tex.

TheKKM said...

Well, Hard Haid Moe would also make for an interesting character to face Darkwing, wouldn't he? I'm much more fond of him than you are, though, of course. Us lusophones loved him so much he had his own magazine!

Joe Torcivia said...

Consider me both amazed and honored that a "cheater" linking post like this can draw so many comments. Let's get to the latest round, and thank you all for continuing to make it happen!

Joe Torcivia said...

Elaine:

That is GREAT research work on April, May, and June and the Chickadees!

I wonder, too, when they are not specifically identified in a story as AM&J, if the artist just employed a familiar and suitable design, when inserting them. Like so much else about Western Publishing, we’ll just never know!

…Makes me also wonder if “future Disney comics historians” will ever consult this Blog when researching the IDW Era! I sure wish some of the old “Dell and Gold Key Guys” had the means of leaving this type of information behind for us to feast on!

Joe Torcivia said...

Anon:

That, too, is GREAT research work on April, May, and June and the Chickadees!

Among us, we sure are a dedicated group, and I’m proud that you all choose to comment here!

Joe Torcivia said...

Clapton:

I could manage to make myself live with the rest of Bugs' TLTS redesign, as a concession to modern times... but NOT those FEET! Why, oh, why?

Joe Torcivia said...

‘Rehab:

Looking over those LOONEY TUNES SHOW DVDs that I still should find time to catch up with, I find they are all Season One. A “three-pack” of 12 eps, and a 14 episode Volume Two. If Dave Alvarez had anything to do with any Season Two redesigns, that could only be a vast improvement! Spoil it for me… Did he change the FEET?

I saw very little of that Tex Avery show, but what I DID see often left me wondering why they called it that. Did DIC simply license his name? Though I can’t help but wonder if the classic character designs of Avery are what influenced the style of Bakshi and Kricfalusi. It sure looks that way to me, though they carried it to greater extremes. Maybe an unfettered ‘90s Tex Avery WOULD have looked like Bakshi and Kricfalusi.

Joe Torcivia said...

KKM:

A Hard Haid Moe comics magazine, is one that would certainly easy for me to pass on! ..Even one by IDW!

Besides, who needs Moe for Darkwing, when he already has Jambalaya Jake!

Comicbookrehab said...

They're the "good" rabbit's feet. :)

Also, the colors are normal: Bugs is all white & grey with a pink - no shades of lavender tinting. The only extreme splash of color was in the interior of the house they live in..the walls are orange.

It's actually Bob Clampett who served as the big influence on Kricfalusi..Bakshi would probably have been influenced by the Fleischer cartoons with Popeye and Betty Boop. Any Tex Avery influence might be coincidental, because Avery's cartoons, no matter how outrageous they seemed, had a kind of discipline and logic - he was known to be extremely methodical in his work..whereas episodes of "Ren & Stimpy" and "Mighty Mouse: The New Adventures" could appear slapdash, for various reasons. I think Thad Komorowski could chime in on this..as for the efforts of that 90's Tex homage cartoon, they were kind of rote, though visually interesting. They tried creating new characters that could've coexisted with the King-size Canary and Bad Luck Blackie. I liked "Power Pooch" and "Freddie the Fly".

Comicbookrehab said...

Having Hard Haid Moe in an episode of "Darkwing Duck" WITH Jambalaya Jake would be..interesting. There is precedent: remember when Humphrey the Bear guest-starred in "Rescue Rangers"?

TheKKM said...

Let's be honest though, we all know the best solution is to replace Gosalyn with Hard Haid Moe and Launchpad with Moe's dog.

Joe Torcivia said...

Yes, you’re right, ‘Rehab! On the various DVD commentaries that John Kricfalusi did on the Looney Tunes Golden Collections (…and how many of us wish THOSE would have continued), his great admiration of Clampett is well documented!

Only thing is, to me anyway, John K.’s characters never looked as well-designed as Clampett’s could be, as in such all-time absolute greats as “Falling Hare”, “Buckaroo Bugs”, and “A Tale of Two Kitties”. Okay maybe “Gruesome Twosome” had more of that.

His characters, again to me, had more the LOOK of Tex Avery’s more gooney-looking characters, but with serious developmental disabilities. Thad literally “wrote the book” on Ren and Stimpy, so his take on this would be both interesting and welcome.

Regarding Humphrey, he was a classic Disney animated character and, as “an animal in the so-called human world” may have been considered a natural for Rescue Rangers.

Was Hard Haid Moe ever done in animation? And, if so, was it in the classic era – even if at the very tail end? I don’t think so, but I’m not an expert on Disney animation. My belief is that he was created for the comics – and, to add an additional layer of obscurity, not for comics that were published here, until recent years.

Carl Barks’ comic book characters were (and are) famous worldwide, and would be much more obvious to animation decision makers at Disney, as would Humphrey as a classic Disney animated character but, unless I’ve got something wrong, this would not apply to Hard Haid Moe. Indeed, I wonder if the only non-Barks comics creations to appear in Disney TV animation were The Phantom Blot (DuckTales, Mickey Mouseworks, and House of Mouse), and Super Goof (House of Mouse) – perhaps two of the most popular characters to emerge from American comics strips and books that were not created, or otherwise refined, by Carl Barks.

I wish we could see some love for Moby Duck! We don’t even get him in IDW, and they’re reintroducing characters by the ton! He could certainly have had an occasional role in what we should now refer to as “Classic DuckTales”, and perhaps he will in the new series, though I seriously doubt it.

Joe Torcivia said...

KKM writes:

“Let's be honest though, we all know the best solution is to replace Gosalyn with Hard Haid Moe and Launchpad with Moe's dog.”

OMG, KKM! This is one of those rare instances on this Blog, where I am at a total loss for something to say! …I don’t know if I can even “LOL”! :-)

TheKKM said...

Oh I definitely am aware Moe's a long shot- I think characters like Brigitta or Fethry should appear since even if not Barksian, they're well-established and highly relevant, in the same lines as, say, Grandma Duck (who should also appear!). I choose what hills to die in- I'm not about to start campaigning for 0.0. Duck and Mata Harrier to appear, much as I love his stories :V

Incidentally, you're correct that Moe's never been animated- he's in the same circumstances as Fethry or 0.0. Duck/Mata Harrier, created by Dick Kinney and Al Hubbard for the Disney Studio Program. Unlike Fethry, who caught on everywhere, Moe ended up getting really popular in Brazil and not really anywhere else. The Italians have been rescuing him recently, though.

Additional, side note- inspired by the nice discussions going on on the comments here and at GeoX's, I decided to open my own Disney Comics blog- and I linked yours on the side "relevant links" list! Thought I'd let you know :)

Joe Torcivia said...

First a Forum, now a Blog… Magnificent!

I wish you many pageviews and interesting comments! I’ll certainly be visiting.

Everyone, go check it out HERE!

Anonymous said...

Elaine:
Thanks for all the detailed info, I am busy now but I shall study it properly when I have the time. Anyway, if what you say it's true than the Inducks database needs to be updated.

Joe:
True, this is a dedicated group and a good research team. I repost this question which apparently went unnoticed: "Is the name April also used in "Clubhouse Crashers"? And if not, which is the first story where all three of them are called by name?"

Thad Komorowski said...

Hi gang,

I don't know the circumstances, but DiC licensed Tex's name from his daughter—and the association to the old master pretty much ends there. There's a lion character that looks a bit like Slap Happy Lion, but the titular cowboy character is unmistakably an homage to other old master Bob Clampett's Red Hot Rider from Buckaroo Bugs. The association to Kricfalusi is mostly due to Wacky World being produced by JK acolyte Eddie Fitzgerald.

As for JK's influences, I think one animator's description of him to me as "a cartoonist obsessed with animation without understanding it" is perfectly apt—in more ways than one. The influence from the Hanna-Barbera cartoons he watched as a kid and the Clampett cartoons he discovered and got obsessed with in college (I personally see way more Hanna-Barbera than Clampett, but I digress) is clearly there, but most of his style is derived from print cartoonists... Don Martin, Ed Roth, Basil Wolverton, Jack Davis... The resulting combination was something truly fresh, especially for mainstream TV.

I'll wind this comment down, but "well-designed" and "appealing" are in the eye of the beholder, and I don't think any cartoon produced for TV can touch Ren and Stimpy in that area. I'll grant you that John K.'s post-R&S work has slid further and further into utter derangement, but that's [partly] because it's had no input from the two artists most responsible for whatever well-designed appeal John K.'s important work ever had: Lynne Naylor and Bob Camp.

Joe Torcivia said...

Anon:

I can’t say, and will defer to Elaine once again, if she wishes to comment.

Joe Torcivia said...

Thad:

That’s GREAT perspective and, unlike myself, direct from someone who knows!

I think it’s pretty amazing that someone would go to the lengths of licensing Tex Avery’s name, for a cartoon show that clearly had little or nothing to do with him.

And, yes, "well-designed" and "appealing" are very definitely in the eye of the beholder.

For instance, I never thought Ren and Stimpy were "well-designed" and "appealing", but I thought their design was fascinating! Especially so for its time!

In contrast, I think most folks would consider Bob Clampett’s Bugs Bunny "well-designed" and "appealing", or Chuck Jones’ Road Runner and Coyote, before Chuck got too stylized. But, there are likely some who would disagree. I also really like the look of Jones’ Tom and Jerry, and I know that’s far from a unanimously held opinion. Some folks may even like the Looney Tunes Show Bugs better than the classic variety – even if they’re only Time Warner executives.

Further, when The Simpsons debuted I thought they were far from "well-designed" and "appealing", being in that DuckTales and Rescue Rangers mode! But, I’ve certainly changed that view in the intervening 27 seasons and counting.

Oh, and then there’s our now-classic differences over Paul Murry…

Seriously, great contribution! I was hoping you’d come through with something like this.

Elaine said...

Anon, I don't know about the first appearance of AMJ's names, sorry. Joe, do you own Four Color 1140, so that some day you could check on "Clubhouse Crashers"? On Inducks: generally speaking, I think Inducks doesn't list an AMJ appearance if they're not named. (Their first appearance in Flipism is, of course, an exception to this rule.) I will double-check this regarding the stories I have when I have time, but I believe that if they're referred to as Chickadees and just happen to look like AMJ, they're not listed as AMJ on Inducks. Again, some of those might be stories where the writer was thinking "generic Chickadees" and the artist drew girls who look mighty like AMJ. When I was researching the treatment of the girl scout groups in Disney comics, I looked for stories on Inducks that had "Chickadees" or both "Junior Woodchucks" and "AMJ". (I wasn't able to find cheap copies of all the relevant comics, so my research remains incomplete!)

Joe Torcivia said...

Elaine:

Just knowing that there is always more to do toward our never-ending research is a good feeling in itself!

Thank you for the info, and we’ll always keep digging, won’t we?

Comicbookrehab said...

Speaking of Red Hot Rider, there was an episode of "The Looney Tunes Show" where Yosemite Sam got a haircut and trimmed off his moustache..looking like a dead ringer for Red Hot Rider! :)


The idea of creating a brand out of Tex's name in the 90's isn't far-fetched - I'm not sure which one debuted before the other, but "Wacky World" and Cartoon Network's "The Tex Avery Show" were on TV around the same time.

Some people say "Rugrats" is the modern (and more successful) incarnation of DC Comics' "Sugar and Spike", only the designs are distinctly different.

Elaine said...

Anon, I just checked the Inducks page on "Clubhouse Crashers," and you can see from the scan of the first page that Dewey in the first panel does indeed call them "April, May and June". But I think you may have made a mistake in translating the issue numbers in the quotation you cite into stories. "Clubhouse Crashers" is in Dell Giant 38. While Dell Giant 35's story is indeed "The Course in Confusion," I think the story from Four Color (OS) 1140 has to be "Easy Does It" (art by Strobl/Liggera). Again, from the Inducks scan of the first page you can tell that Donald calls all three girls by name. So that is pretty clearly the first story with all three names. Though it only beats "Clubhouse Crashers" by one month! According to Inducks, only one of AMJ appears in "The Course in Confusion," so it would make sense that only April is named in that one.

Anonymous said...

Elaine:
"Anon, I don't know about the first appearance of AMJ's names, sorry": well, I take it as a good thing. Until someone can check Four Color 1140, I can breathe, relax and take care of other things instead of thinking of a new question to ask here. But when you said "I believe that if they're referred to as Chickadees and just happen to look like AMJ, they're not listed as AMJ on Inducks": is this a rule of Inducks, or does it just mean that the pages for those stories needs to be updated?

Anyway, I found that in Barks' story "Best Christmas" (December 1945, story code W FGW 45-01) Donald refers to himself and his nephews as "US DUCKS". The story predates "Turkey Trouble" by one year, but it isn't clear if it is meant to be to be read as "us Ducks" (referring to the Duck family) or "us ducks" (meaning: us guys). Even if first interpretation is the correct one, it might still be argued that even if the boys had a different surname he could still say that. So, I guess "Turkey Trouble" remains the first known use ofhe surname Duck for the boys.

Joe Torcivia said...

‘Rehab:

Darned if, mentally picturing Yosemite Sam without the hair and especially the moustache, he wouldn’t look like Clampett’s "Red Hot Rider”! Brilliant!

Ah, but there was one HUGE difference between "Wacky World" (what very little I *did* see of it, anyway) and Cartoon Network's "The Tex Avery Show" and it was that the latter was comprised of GENUINE Tex Avery cartoons. I watched that whenever I could! My issue, if you could call it that, would be licensing Tex Avery's name for something completely unrelated to him or his work.

Oh, at least to me, DC’s Sugar and Spike were (to revive that phrase again) "well-designed" and "appealing", and Rugrats were not. …It really is all in the eye of the beholder!

And, while Rugrats was unquestionably, far and away more successful, I wonder how different things might have been if Sugar and Spike had a good animation studio behind it, back in the sixties when a cartoon like that might have appealed to an audience of both children AND adults – unlike the ‘70s and ‘80s, when it would have been a badly animated, watered-down, tepid mush of a kiddie show! …I know I would have watched it! After all that time as a successful and well-remembered animated series, S&S could even be iconic today!

Joe Torcivia said...

Elaine:

Great research once again!

Anon:

I'd regard "US DUCKS" as being a reference to them collectively, and not necessarily as a surname. But, that's just me.

Anonymous said...

Elaine:

You are right, I checked my old messages and I did made a goof.

So this is what we can say about AMJ.

*Their first appearance is in "Flip Decision" (WDC 149, February 1953), text and art by Carl Barks. They are unnamed, and they are not seen again until more than six and a half years later.

*Their second appearance is in "The Double Date" (Four Color 1055, November 1959), text by Bob Gregory (?) and art by Carl Barks. They are still unnamed. Then, they disappear for almost a year, before appearing in seven stories in three month: two stories in October 1960, two stories in November 1960 and three stories in December 1960.

*Their third appearance is in "The Course In Confusion" (Dell Giant 35, October 1960), text by an unknown writer and art by Pete Alvarado. Actually, only one of Daisy's nieces appears here, and she's called April (first name to be revealed).

*Their fourth appearance is in "Easy Does It" (Four Color 1140, October 1960), text by an unknown writer, art by Tony Strobl, ink by John Liggera. All three of them appear, and their names are revealed to be April, May and June. However, even though Inducks places "Easy Does It" after "The Course In Confusion", the two stories came out at the same time.

*Their fifth appearance is in "Clubhouse Crashers" (Dell Giant 38, November 1960), written by an unknown writer and drawn by Phil DeLara.Anyway, once again the girls are referred as April, May and June. I wouldn't say, however, that it was necessarily Dewey who said it, as he could be any one of Donald's nephews. The same issue also contains what Inducks considrs their sixt appearance ("Family Fun", written by Carl Fallberg, drawn by Tony Strobl and inked by Steve Steere), but I don't know if they are named or unnamed.

*Of the three stories that were published in December 1960, one of them was "Small Fryers", an art-only Carl Barks 1-pager where AMJ are called by name. We know Barks gave the finished story to the editor in June 6, so, their names were already decided by that point.

I assume that either an editor came up with ther names and asked multiple writers to write stories about them, or most of these stories with unknown writer were written by the same person; otherwise, a writer couldn't refer to "Easy Does It" (official story where they are all named) as early as June 6, when "Easy Does It" was still unpublished.


UPDATE: I don't want to rewrite what I said above, but I found out that in the following illustrations (from Dell Giant #35 and #38) the girls are all called by name.

https://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=W+DG+++35-03C
https://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=W+DG+++38-02A

This answers many questions.

Joe:

I agree with you, "US DUCKS" most likely refers to them collectively, so "Turkey Trouble" remains the first use of Duck for HDL in my book.